Madhubalan v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25/08/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI Madhubalan, S/o.Mani, ..Petitioner/ Accused Vs The State of Tamilnadu rep.by The Inspector of Police, Nagaiahpuram Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.32 of 2025) .. Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.K.Abiya Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.32 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : This Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.07.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 308(5) and 351(3) of BNS altered into Sections 331(3), 311 r/w.309(4) of BNS in Crime No.32 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 1/5

2. The case of the prosecution is that the on 13.07.2025, at about 09.00a.m. When the defacto-complainant was alone in her house, this petitioner came there and stating that he came for painting work in her house as instructed by her husband. Immediately, she contacted her husband over phone and asked about the same, he denied that he has not sent any person for painting work. This petitioner asked water from the defacto-complainant, when the defacto-complainant came into her house to bring water,the petitioner locked the door and snatched 3 1⁄2 sovereigns of gold chain from her at knife point. Immediately, the defacto-complainant had raised alarm, on hearing her noise, the neighbours and relatives of the defactocomplainant caught red handed by the general public. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this petitioner is working as painter, after completing painting work at the defacto-complainant's house and asked for painting charges for a sum of Rs.8000/- but the defactocomplainant refused to pay the same and lodged a false complaint against this petitioner. This petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. This petitioner is ready and willing to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He would further submit that the petitioner is in custody from 13.07.2025, nearly 43 days. Hence, he seeks bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that this 2/5

petitioner entered into the defacto-complainant's house and he snatched 3 1⁄2 sovereigns of gold jewel from the defacto-complainant. Immediately, the defactocomplainant raised alarm, on hearing her noise, the neighbours came there and caught the accused red handed and handed over to the respondent police. In this case, the entire properties were recovered by the respondent police. There is no previous case against this petitioner. However, he objected to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that in this case, the entire properties were recovered by the respondent police, there is no previous case against this petitioner, the petitioner/Accused is in judicial custody from 13.07.2025, taking into consideration of the period of incarceration, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur and on further conditions that :- [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass 3/5

Book to ensure their identity.

[b] The petitioner shall furnish his residential address and contact number to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur. If the petitioner changes his residential address, he shall report the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur; [c] the petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent police daily twice at 10.00.a.m., and 05.00p.m. until further orders. [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. 4/5

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

sd/- 25/08/2025 / TRUE COPY / / /2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

gvn TO 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur.

2.Do Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai District. 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.

4. The Inspector of Police, Nagaiahpuram Police Station, Madurai District.

5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to M/s.K.ABIYA, Advocate ( SR-9136[I] dated 25/08/2025 ) ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14086 of 2025 Date :25/08/2025 SBN/26.08.2025 5P/7C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 5/5